Culture of Inclusion in the Educational Ecosystem of a Modern University



This article discusses the current issues of defining the "inclusion culture" in the context of the subjective perceptions of working teachers and students of a pedagogical university about people with disabilities, the peculiarities of their life and the prospects of their social integration. The personal positions of individual actors of the educational space largely determine the generalized image of a certain ideal model of inclusive educational and socio-cultural spaces. Special attention is paid to the issues of unconditional acceptance of persons with disabilities, securing theiractive position, partner co-author participation in the processes of social integration and self-realization. An attempt is made to differentiate the concepts of "inclusive culture" and "culture of inclusion" with the designation of the main components of this definition and the definition of factors for the successful implementation of inclusive processes in the educational ecosystem of a modern university. WE proposed some strategic solutions for the formation and development of a culture of inclusion in the ecosystem of the university according to four vectors of activity with an approximate list of activities. The materials of the article actualize the concepts of the educational ecosystem in terms of its correlation with the processes of inclusion and the development of a system of continuous high-quality and affordable education for all.

General Information

Keywords: inclusive education; culture of inclusion; inclusive culture; teacher education; educational ecosystem

Journal rubric: Educational Psychology

Article type: scientific article


Received: 04.10.2023


For citation: Kashtanova S.N., Kudryavtsev V.A., Krasnopevtseva T.F. Culture of Inclusion in the Educational Ecosystem of a Modern University. Psikhologicheskaya nauka i obrazovanie = Psychological Science and Education, 2023. Vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 33 – 44. DOI: 10.17759/pse.2023280603.

Full text


The ecosystem of any organization is a set of interacting elements and structures that exist inside and around the structure. Ecosystems in education are interconnected educational spaces that unite both institutional and individual participants (education providers) operating with various educational resources for individual and cooperative learning [11].

In the research of A.G. Bezpalova, the concept of "university ecoinclusivity" is presented in detail, which means the forced university activity for inclusive students at all stages of the educational process, information, technically and technologically modern support for professional curricula development, which, taken as a whole, is aimed at the employment of such graduates and the formation of a socially adapted personality [1]. The active support of comprehensive ties with graduates and partners, the effective collaboration of the university, business and public non-profit organizations in inclusion will increase the level of university ecosystem [5]. Inclusion is one of the most important components of the educational ecosystem, as it is aimed at ensuring equal opportunities for all participants in the educational process, regardless of their individual characteristics or abilities.

An important role in ensuring equal opportunities in obtaining affordable and high-quality education is played by the culture and ethics of inclusion as a complex polysubjective process, a certain ethics code and non-discriminatory communication norms, the respectful communication between people with and without disabilities [9]. The culture of inclusion as an educational ecosystem component that acts as a certain system-forming socio-cultural phenomenon that ensures the formation of "precisely the ideology, strategies, means, forms, technologies of the inclusion process itself" [8].

The study issues concern the aspects of differentiation and content of a culture of inclusion in the subjective perceptions and expectations of teachers in educational ecosystems implementing education, upbringing and social engagement of persons with disabilities at different levels of education. The obtained data allows us to determine the main areas of activity focused on improving the competence of the subjects of the educational space and the development of inclusive culture of the educational ecosystem in the university.


The object of the study was the subjective perceptions and expectations of teachers at different levels of education who have immediate experience of interacting with people with disabilities, and also students receiving a defectological education. These respondents represent the subject space of the educational ecosystem of a modern university and act as the actual and potential relays of inclusive culture as the framework of continuous inclusive education. The main method of the study was the expert assessments based on questionnaire survey data and the primary statistical analysis of the obtained data. The questionnaire consisted of 25 questions revealing the expectations and perception towards people with disabilities and the experience of interaction with them; a general understanding of the term "a culture of inclusion" and its content; ideas about the main directions, means and expected difficulties in the formation and development of a culture of inclusion in modern society.

There were 250 participants who participated in the survey, including 130 students of the "Special (defectological) education" specialization, of the ages of 18 to 24, and 120 people are teachers of schools and pre–school educational organizations aged 22 to 62 years, who have experience teaching children with disabilities for more than one year. The participants of both research groups are female. To determine the significance of the difference in the subjective perceptions and expectations of the respondents, the method of analyzing arbitrary contingency tables using Pearson's chi-squared criterion was used. 


Perception Analysis of Persons with Disabilities as "Other", "Different from us"






People with disabilities are

different, not like us



the same as us



different, but they can be adapted



the same as us, just have some deviations




The socio-psychological subtext and substantial content of the proposed options is quite clear and comes down to two opposing options "similarity" and "otherness". The third option is a rough copy of the second, and the fourth is of the first one.

The highest percentages are noted for the fourth option, characteristic of the implied or conditional acceptance of this very otherness within 65% of both groups of respondents. There were no significant differences in the groups, p > 0.1. The option "... they are different, not like us" was chosen by less than 3% of all respondents, which allows us to set up discourse on the reality of accepting the otherness of another person, which a number of researchers attribute to absolute value, in contrast to the traditional identification of tolerance with patience as a form of conscious repression of the contempt for the otherness of another person, its misunderstanding that it should be accepted, not tolerated [10, 12]. It means to let other people be different and accept them as they are, with all their strengths and weaknesses.

The acceptance and understanding of human diversity, otherness, dissimilarity, the obvious status of "different, not like us" is the basis of the culture of inclusion as a certain ethical standard of non-discriminatory interaction and two-way respectful communication of people who differ from each other by some features [9, 16].

In our opinion, the very understanding of the "Culture of inclusion" and "Inclusive culture" definitions needs detailed elaboration by the subjects of inclusive and special (correctional) educational systems. The need for distinguishing between these concepts is also confirmed by the data of our study. The opinions of both preschool and school teachers was balanced almost equally, 49% of all surveyed teachers believe that this is the same concept. At the same time, about 73% of the students studying at the faculty of "Special (defectological) education” consider the “culture of inclusion” to be a separate concept, different from the concept of "inclusive culture". There is a high statistical significance of the difference in the groups of respondents according to the Pearson c2 – df-1,2 criterion, c2 =20.1. p < 0.01. This is explained by a rather active shift of emphasis towards a cultural approach and the actualization of the subjective, proactive position of persons with disabilities themselves in the processes of social inclusion and self-fulfillment. The subjective aspect of the culture and ethics of inclusion assumes that a person with disabilities and their environment cultivate and develop their own strategies of non-toxic behavior corresponding to the ecosystem of this social group.

Two positions proposed in the questionnaire were aimed at identifying the attitudes and perceptions of respondents about the subjectivity of persons with disabilities and the objectivity of the culture of inclusion itself (Table 2).

Table 2. Attitude Analysis Towards Subjectivity of Persons with Disabilities in the Context of the Culture of Inclusion






People with disabilities are

the subject of the culture of inclusion



the object of the culture of inclusion



the subject and the object of the culture of inclusion



the partners of the culture of inclusion



The culture of inclusion is

more about society than about people with disabilities



more about people with  disabilities themselves, rather than about society



more about the interaction of society and people with disabilities



more about the processes of integration into society of any form of “otherness"




According to the results, with the general orientation of respondents towards the interaction of society and persons with disabilities, it is teachers who significantly differ in their attitude towards partnerships in the development of a culture of inclusion, df-3, c2 = 34.09. p < 0.001. At the same time, students are more focused on the subjectivity of persons with disabilities themselves, while teachers believe that the culture of inclusion is more about society, df-3, c2  = 11.42. p < 0.01.

It should be observed that students define a “culture of inclusion” as an instrumental means of successful social integration and self-fulfillment of persons with disabilities, while there is some concern that only 12% of all respondents consider a culture of inclusion as a criterion for assessing a personality, referring it to indicators of civic society development. Special attention should be paid to the fact that only 1.5% of students and less than 4% of teachers name the culture level of inclusion as a significant indicator of a modern family’s development. This can be considered a "sore point" of the development of the entire culture of inclusion, because the most important source of the socio-cultural experience of the younger generation is the intra-family environment, reflecting moral attitudes, spiritual values and the social position of parents and the immediate environment [3]. At the same time, about 45% of all surveyed respondents believe that the phenomenon of the culture of inclusion is determined specifically by the person’s values and principles.

In this aspect, the well-known viewpoint of Alexander Vasilyevich Suvorov is very appropriate, which states that any education should include a cultural aspect that is not assimilated and not appropriated, but created and cultivated. Each person forms their own personal version of culture, which is not "pushed in" from outside, but is formed by the personality in collaboration with other people [13].

Students rate their individual level of culture of inclusion significantly higher than trainee teachers working with children with disabilities in the system of inclusive and special (correctional) education: 48.2% of teachers and only 23.6% of students characterize their level of inclusive culture as low and below average, statistical calculations also confirm the significance of the difference: df-1, c2 = 4.9. p < 0.05.

Speaking about the ecosystem of the educational environment and the culture of inclusion, we cannot ignore the phenomena of the general communication culture, cultural behavior and the psychological culture of the individual, the subject of educational and socio-cultural processes. So, in particular, social communication can be defined as a variant of culture, a kind of universal socio-cultural mechanism that regulates the process of interaction between members of society, defining the socio-cultural norms and patterns of such interaction [4]. A high percentage of respondents believes that the general culture of communication and interpersonal interaction among people with disabilities is somewhat lower than that of normatively developing peers, this opinion is shared by 49% of all teachers surveyed and almost 53% of students. Also, 27.5% of students believe that the level of communication culture and interaction of persons with disabilities is significantly lower than satisfactorily developing peers; this position is shared by only 15.4% of school teachers. It is among secondary school teachers working with children with disabilities that 38.5% of respondents believe that the level of the communication culture of people with disabilities does not differ from similar indicators among normally developing peers, whereas only 16% of students expressed this point of view, df-4, c2 = 14,65, p < 0,01. Obviously, this difference is explained by the real-life experience of close interaction with such students by teachers and the lack of diverse communication with people with disabilities among students. Speaking about different aspects of communication, one interesting indicator should be paid attention to – 60% of the surveyed students and 35% of teachers believe that knowing the basics of Russian sign language would be helpful and they are ready to be trained.

Most of the various authors’ definitions of "cultural behavior" come down to understanding this socio-psychological phenomenon as a set of forms of everyday human behavior, which reflect the moral and aesthetic norms of this behavior [1]. Among the main “markers” of the cultural behavior of any person, according to the results of the survey, the following were identified (indicators are ranked in order of priority):

  1. "Actions in public places" (72% of teachers and 84% of students). Students highlight this indicator more emphatically.
  2. "Communicative and speech actions" (74.8% of teachers and 76% of students).
  3. "Following social etiquette rules" (57.7% of teachers and 47.3% of students). To a greater extent, it is school teachers who are focused on this indicator.
  4. "Actions in everyday life (self-service) and leisure activities" (50.7% of preschool teachers, 48.9% of students, 34.6% of school teachers). According to the feedback, it was noted in the comments that self-service issues are the most important for preschool teachers, and students often face issues of organizing leisure time for students with disabilities.
  5. "A neat, tidy and presentable look" (29% of teachers and 35% of students).

Psychological culture is a rather important part of basic personal culture, which determines the processes of self-identification, self-fulfillment, social adaptation and inclusion, personal and career growth, balancing the inner world with the outer world [6].

It should be emphasized that more than 40% of respondents consider the legal aspects of a culture of inclusion to be the most difficult but relevant, which makes it necessary to include meaningful content focused on this issue to develop inclusive culture at the university. The survey showed that among the priority areas in this area, several issues can be distinguished (the rating is in a descending order of "merit", ranking was carried out according to the quantitative majority of certain preferences from the proposed choices):

  1. Highlighting and showing interest of the general public towards the problems of education, social inclusion and self-fulfillment of people with disabilities (65.6%)
  2. Support and extension of successful practices in social contacts of persons with disabilities (63.9%)
  3. Stimulating social and educational activity of subjects in inclusive educational spaces as cultural relays (57.7%)
  4. Development and implementation of additional educational programs (44.6%)
  5. Generalization, standardization and differentiation of the definitions on the problems of inclusion (23.6%)

A fairly extensive field for analysis and appropriate practical solutions can give us feedback about the alleged causes (factors) of the main difficulties in teaching people with disabilities. The respondents chose the three most significant ones, and the percentages of preferences for each of the proposed options were calculated (Table 3).

Table 3. The Factors that Cause Learning Difficulties for People with Disabilities






According to my personal experience, I can assume that the main difficulties in teaching people with disabilities are due to

behavior and attitude of people around



personal features of students with disabilities



abnormal social settings of students with disabilities and their immediate environment



lack of educational facilities for persons with disabilities



excessive attention towards the students with disabilities




There is a high statistical significance of the difference in the groups of respondents according to the Pearson c2– df-4, c2=25.61. p < 0.001.

It should be pointed out that there is one item - "excessive attention towards students" that is not popular, but it is noted by a fairly large number of respondents, it would seem that there is nothing wrong with extra attention to this category of school or university students. In some studies among teachers working in inclusion, it was noted that 50% of respondents (a sample of 400 people) are convinced that extra attention to students with disabilities leads to a negative impact on the learning outcomes of their classmates, reduces motivation and cognitive activity [14]. In our study, this factor of negative influence was noted by 23% of teachers and only 1.4% of all students surveyed.


The survey drew increasing attention to the "growth point" in terms of learning environment for people with disabilities at all levels of continuous education – this is the question of assistive technologies. Only 16% of all respondents described the concept of "assistive technologies" as "quite an ordinary thing used in practice." Accordingly, 34% of respondents treated this concept as "absolutely unknown" and 50% as "something familiar, but not very clear."

Among the main obstacles to the formation and development of the culture of inclusion, the respondents identified the following:

  • poor awareness of inclusion issues among people (81.5%);
  • lack of systematic government decisions in promoting the relevant ideology (57.7%);
  • low socio-cultural level of societies (53.8%);
  • insufficient number of public initiatives (41.5%);
  • low social activity of people with disabilities (23.8%);
  • destructive social attitudes towards persons with disabilities (20.8%).

The issue of providing accessible, consistent and scientifically-based data on the features of various categories of persons with disabilities, their potential opportunities and resources of social integration remains relevant. A low socio-cultural level, a lack of proactive solutions and low social activity are quite interrelated. The need to address these issues determines the main strategic approaches towards developing a culture of inclusion as an integral part of a modern university ecosystem [7].

Currently, Nizhny Novgorod Pedagogical University named after Kozma Minin is working on four main vectors of inclusive culture development in the university ecosystem (Table 1).

Table 4. The Main Vectors of Development of a Culture of Inclusion in Minin University Ecosystem





Educational activity

-        Building networking cooperation with educational and public organizations of the region in order to conduct educational intensive courses for children and adults with mental disorders.

-        Development, testing and implementation of modular academic programs of additional education for a wide range of students:

-        Inclusive volunteering in educational organizations;

-        Culture of inclusion in counselor activities;

-        Inclusive potential development in an educational organization;

-        Mental health in the focus of psychological and pedagogical coaching


Cultural and educational activities

-        Organizing and running cultural and educational events "Ethics and aesthetics of social interaction in family education of children with mental disorders"

-        Organizing and running a series of events in the format of a “Public lounge” to discuss the phenomenology of “a culture of inclusion”.

-        Extension of successful social involvement of persons with mental disorders by network partners.

-        Posting and distribution of relevant resources in social networks, creating meaningful content, user activity management.


Information and analytics

-        Online seminars (webinars) on the problems of a common understanding, ideology and mechanisms for the effective implementation of socially inclusive processes in the system of affordable and high-quality continuous education.

-        "Mental health disorders - myths and reality" - analysis and expert assessment of subjective viewpoints and objective data on the individual characteristics of the psychophysical development of persons with mental disorders and the prospects for their social inclusion.

-        "Closed doors" – a factor analysis of the systemic isolation of persons with various deviations in mental development.

-        Collection and analysis of subjective perceptions and personal expectations of different general public representatives regarding persons with mental disabilities and the prospects of their education, social involvement and inclusion.


Innovative and practical activities

-        Development and running cultural and leisure activities for persons with mental disabilities;

-        Development and testing of technologies and tools for the social integration of persons with mental disabilities in  an educational organization environment;

-        Search and extension of successful practices of expanding social contacts of persons with mental disorders and their families.

Systemic events and cooperation are the most important factors in the successful development of a culture of inclusion in education [15].


Various subjective perceptions and expectations on key concepts and positions in determining the essence and mechanisms of the development of a culture of inclusion cause problems with interaction in inclusive processes. Understanding particular issues and analyzing general trends in the development of inclusive processes both in society as a whole and in the system of continuous education allow us to reveal the meaningful aspect of inclusive culture itself as an integral part of the modern university ecosystem.

An absolute acceptance of persons with disabilities is actually demonstrated by only 4% of respondents, most of them are characterized by an implied or conditional acceptance of such people. More than half of the surveyed teachers and more than 75% of students, future defectologist teachers, consider their own level of the culture of inclusion insufficient, indicating the need to implement some measures to form inclusive competencies in all subjects of modern educational ecosystems. About 73% of students and 49% of all teachers surveyed quite clearly distinguish between the concepts of "inclusive culture" and "a culture of inclusion".

As practice shows, the efficiency of the development of a culture of inclusion in a modern university as an educational ecosystem directly depends on the level of involvement in systemic cooperation of all elements of the structure of an educational organization, as well as on the productivity of interdepartmental interaction and successful partnership with educational and methodological resource centers for the training of persons with disabilities based in universities.


  1. Bezpalova A.G. Algoritm sovershenstvovaniya inklyuzivnogo obrazovaniya kak komponenta ekosistemy vysshego uchebnogo zavedeniya [Elektronnyi resurs] [Algorithm for improving inclusive education as a component of the ecosystem of a higher educational institution] [Electronic resource]. Vestnik RGEU RINKh [Bulletin of the Russian State University of Economics], 2022, no. 1(77). URL: (Accessed 16.07.2023).
  2. Borodinova N.N. Formirovanie osnov dukhovno-nravstvennoi kul'tury lichnosti [Development of foundations to spiritual and moral culture of personality]. N.N. Borodinova, N.A. Daeva. Kul'turnyi landshaft Rossii: dukhovnye traditsii i sovremennost': Materialy Mezhdunarodnoi nauchno-prakticheskoi konferentsii, Kursk, 29 marta 2018 goda [Cultural landscape of Russia: spiritual traditions and modernity: Materials of the International Scientific and Practical Conference, Kursk, March 29, 2018]. Kursk: Zakrytoe aktsionernoe obshchestvo "Universitetskaya kniga", 2019, pp. 75–80.
  3. Bulgakova A.O. Fenomen sotsial'noi kommunikatsii, ili kak obshchaetsya kul'tura? [The phenomenon of social communication, or how does culture communicate?]. 30 let bez Soyuza: poteri, udachi, perspektivy: materialy Vserossiiskoi studencheskoi konferentsii, Irkutsk, 27 marta 2021 goda [30 years without a Union: losses, good luck, prospects: materials of the All-Russian Student Conference, Irkutsk, March 27, 2021]. Irkutsk: Irkutsk State University, 2021, pp. 139–142.
  4. Izotova A.G., Gavrilyuk E.S. Ekosistemnyi podkhod kak novyi trend razvitiya vysshego obrazovaniya [Ecosystem approach as a new trend in the development of higher education]. Voprosy innovatsionnoi ekonomiki [Issues of innovative economics], 2022. Vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 1211–1226. DOI:10.18334/vinec.12.2.114869
  5. Il'ina E.V., Filipenko E.V. Kul'tura povedeniya kak odna iz vazhneishikh storon sotsial'nogo stanovleniya lichnosti [Electronic resource] [Culture of behavior as one of the most important aspects of social formation of personality]. Ekonomika i sotsium, 2016, no. 4-1(23). URL: (Accessed 06.06.2023).
  6. Kovaleva E.A. Problemy psikhologicheskoi adaptatsii cheloveka k sovremennym sotsial'nym usloviyam [Problems of psychological adaptation of a person to modern social conditions]. Mirovye tsivilizatsii [World civilizations], 2020. Vol. 5, no. 1-2, pp. 63–69.
  7. Krasnopevceva T.F., Fil`chenkova I.F., Vinokurova I.V. K voprosu o gotovnosti nauchno-pedagogicheskix rabotnikov vuza k realizacii inklyuzivnogo obrazovaniya [On the issue of the readiness of scientific and pedagogical staff of the university to implement inclusive education]. Vestnik Mininskogo universiteta, 2020. Vol. 8, no. 1, p. 5. URL: (Accessed 10.07.2023)
  8. Kudryavtsev V.A. Kul'tura inklyuzii kak strategicheskii orientir v postroenii obshchestva ravnykh vozmozhnostei [Culture of inclusion as a strategic guideline in building a society of equal opportunities]. Kudryavtsev V.A., Kashtanova S.N., Ol'khina E.A., Medvedeva E.Yu., Karpushkina N.V. V knige: Razvitie inklyuzii v vysshem obrazovanii: setevoi podkhod. Ser. "Biblioteka zhurnala «Psikhologicheskaya nauka i obrazovanie»" [In the book: The development of inclusion in higher education: a network approach. Ser. "Library of the journal "Psychological Science and education"]. Moscow, 2018, pp. 30–39.
  9. Mirzaeva E.R. Kul'tura inklyuzii kak strategicheskii orientir sistemy obrazovaniya [Culture of inclusion as a strategic guideline of the education system]. Obshchestvo. Inklyuziya, 2019, no. 3(39), pp. 30–37.
  10. Prikhod'ko E.V. Formirovanie tolerantnogo otnosheniya u pedagogov k detyam s ogranichennymi vozmozhnostyami zdorov'ya [Formation of a tolerant attitude among teachers towards children with disabilities]. Tsivilizatsiya znanii: rossiiskie realii. Sbornik trudov XXI Mezhdunarodnoi nauchnoi konferentsii [Civilization of knowledge: Russian realities. Proceedings of the XXI International Scientific Conference], 2020, pp. 191–193.
  11. Sidorova O.V. Razvitie obrazovatel'nykh ekosistem: mezhdunarodnaya i rossiiskaya praktika [Development of educational ecosystems: international and Russian practice]. Vestnik GGNTU. Gumanitarnye i sotsial'no-ekonomicheskie nauki [Bulletin of the GGNTU. Humanities and socio-economic sciences], 2021. Vol. 17, no. 3(25), pp. 48–54. DOI:10.34708/GSTOU.2021.38.26.006
  12. Starovoit N.V. Inklyuzivnaya kul'tura obrazovatel'noi organizatsii: podkhody k ponimaniyu i formirovaniyu [Inclusive culture of an educational organization: approaches to understanding and formation]. Nauchno-metodicheskii elektronnyi zhurnal «Kontsept» [Scientific and methodological electronic journal "Concept"], Vol. 8, pp. 31–35.
  13. Suvorov A.V. Problema vnutrennei i vneshnei lichnostnoi inklyuzii (na primere Sergievo-Posadskogo detskogo doma dlya slepoglukhikh) [The problem of internal and external personal inclusion (on the example of Sergiev Posad orphanage for the deaf-blind)]. Psikhologicheskaya nauka i obrazovanie = Psychological science and education, 2013. Vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 99–103.
  14. Khomutova O.M. Sotsial'nye ustanovki pedagogov na obuchayushchikhsya s ogranichennymi vozmozhnostyami zdorov'ya v usloviyakh obshcheobrazovatel'noi organizatsii [Electronic resource] [Social attitudes of teachers towards students with disabilities in a general education organization]. Uchenye zapiski. Elektronnyi nauchnyi zhurnal Kurskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta [Scientific Electronic scientific journal of Kursk State University], 2022, no. 2(62). URL: (Accessed 10.08.2023).
  15. Ilaltdinova E.Yu., Filchenkova I.F., Kudryavtsev V.A., Krasnopevtseva T.F. Development of an Inclusive Culture of Pre-service Teacher. ARPHA Proceedings 5, 2022, pp. 635–646. DOI:10.3897/ap.5.e0635
  16. Modeling of psychological support of persons with disabilities at the University. N.V. Karpushkina, V.V. Kisova, I.A. Koneva [et al.]. Journal for Educators, Teachers and Trainers, 2021. Vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 8–14. DOI:10.47750/jett.2021.12.01.003

Information About the Authors

Svetlana N. Kashtanova, PhD in Psychology, Associate Professor, Head of the Chair of Special Pedagogy and Psychology, Nizhny Novgorod state pedagogical University named after K. Minin, Nizhniy Novgorod, Russia, ORCID:, e-mail:

Vladimir A. Kudryavtsev, PhD in Psychology, Chair of Special Pedagogy and Psychology, Nizhny Novgorod state pedagogical University named after K. Minin, Nizhniy Novgorod, Russia, ORCID:, e-mail:

Tatyana F. Krasnopevtseva, Director of the Resource Educational and Methodological Center for Training understanding of disabled people and persons with limited health capabilities and disabilities, Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Education "Nizhny Novgorod State Pedagogical University named after Kozma Minin", Nizhniy Novgorod, Russia, ORCID:, e-mail:



Total: 60
Previous month: 32
Current month: 20


Total: 24
Previous month: 13
Current month: 6